Checks Over $10,000 Require Two Signatures

work safe

When I get a check from SEP, there is a note and a blank line by Traci’s signature. It states that any check for more than $10,000 needs a second person to agree. While I’m sure there are some fraud prevention reasons this is a standard business practice, it serves a better purpose in our Demming based world view. We assume Traci is doing her best and has the truest of intentions,
but it sets a line on the sand for when she should get a collaborator. It is one thing for the IT staff to buy a new workstation for a couple grand. Once we are acquiring Oracle licenses it is nice to have a second person to say, “yes, there is no better way to achieve this goal other than to give Oracle everything in our bank account.”

We are reading Lean Architecture for Sep’s book club. It seems to be a good book because there is some agreement and some disagreement with its contents.

One such disagreement was over separating modules basd on teams. Why make such an artificial distinction? Isn’t it far too heavy to have to hand off a feature from a business layer team to a UI team to create a new feature? Yes. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about distinctions of usage, not necissarily infrastructure. The graphs verses the import logic For example.

It was also mentioned that we have yet to talk about changing the architecture. The pithy answer is, of course, you change it every time you write any new code. The less pithy answer is any time another team is impacted by your code.

Crossing from one module to another is the trigger. Since it will cause changes on the code of another module, I should not make these design choices alone. It is a firewall against the inevitable descent in to the big ball of mud. It is the second signature line on the check.

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>